Greetings froman "Illuminist"

Alex Martins

I've recently come across your reviews and critiques of Illuminism and despite the subject line I would not consider myself an Illuminist. I stumbled upon the website a couple years ago on my quest for Truth and the ideas were very compelling and sparked my interest in philosophy. Despite the validity of the ideas of monads without finding the Armageddon Conspiracy website I wouldn't of developed such a deep love for philosophy so I owe them that much at least. I decided to read the works of Hegel, Nietzsche, Leibniz, etc. just to see if what Hockney was saying about them were true. I feel that it has at least set me on the right track.

You've raised some interesting points in regards to Hockneys theory that I would like to reply to but for now I thought I would just introduce myself as I don't have the time right now to type up a proper response. My name is Alex Martins and I'm actually an electrical engineer so I make my living by implementing the scientific method. Monads aside I think the most compelling idea I got from Illuminism is that the universe is entirely mathematical and hence knowable, I know this isn't original to Illuminism but it was the first place I heard it. As you may know electrical engineering has a lot of math associated with it and I have to use Eulers, Fourier, imaginary numbers, etc. all the time...I think this is why I was drawn into these kinds of theories.

I found it odd how Pedro talked a lot about dialectics but never saw that maybe Illuminism is supposed to be the synthesis between rationalism and empiricism, he was far to much on the rationalist side. You may say that science in its current form uses a mix between rationalism and empiricism, I would have to disagree with this as it seems many scientist and engineers I have met over the years have an idea that if something can't be measured in some sort of way then it doesn't exist so I see science in its current form wedded to materialism and empiricism. Despite all its success I think it's kind of hit a wall now and the only way to progress is to address the philosophical implications of the scientific paradigm and to correct them or else science will never take us to that Star Trek future I want.

I want to respond to the questions you posed at the end of your reply to the anonymous writers. The first one was "Why should knowledge that is as profound as you claim be a secret?" I don't think it was secret as much as it was misunderstood. Pythagoras said thousands of years ago "All is numbers", the Monadology has been around for hundreds of years. Gödel spoke frequently of a conspiracy to keep man stupid by suppressing the works of Leibniz. Perhaps it wasn't that it was kept secret the more that it was suppressed or was (and still is) misunderstood.

As for peer-reviewed work concerning Illuminism I haven't found anything that explicitly says its Illuminist but I have come across a few things that I think you may be interested in. The first one is something known as Sorce Theory, this is an alternative theory of matter that essentially replaces the particle bias of the Standard Model with wave harmonics and fluid dynamics. In 1965 the theory predicted the existence of slight deviations in the rate of change of the strength of all gravitational fields, in the 1980's confirmation was experimentally stumbled upon during tests of the earth's local gravitational field strength. I found this to be inline with some of the ideas of Illuminism since it tries to say everything is fundamentally waves and Illuminism says Eulers is the genesis and Eulers does describe sine and cosine waves. Perhaps this could be the conceptual leap needed to show how Eulers can be the basis for existence.

Another piece of work I found the other day which is extremely interesting is known as "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe." I haven't made the way through all the material but I can see the similarities between Illuminism and this model. The papers are easily found online but if you can't find them I can send you a 56 page paper that outlines the theory. The guy who wrote it has been featured in several prominent academic journals and was named "Americas smartest man" a few times. I don't feel I know about this theory to say anything about it but it is a dual-aspect monism, just like Illuminism.

As for the anonymity part, I don't care if you post my name but the reason people may want to remain anonymous is because they don't want their name or reputation tarnished. Thomas Khun wrote about how science advances in terms of paradigms and how they cast people out like heretics. I work in scientific circles, I've even had a job at a particle accelerator, and I've seen what happens to the "free thinkers", they lose their jobs. The ones you may point to only started writing controversial things AFTER they have followed the party line for awhile so that it gives them some credence. This is why I think people may want to remain anonymous when they defend a theory such as Illuminism is because they feel they haven't established enough rapport within the scientific community that they feel they could be taken seriously and don't want to hinder their chances of advances their careers.

I plan to write a reply to some of the philosophical points you've raised, most likely in collaboration with a few others that are knowledgeable in these areas (we even have a few scientist in our ranks!) So look forward in the coming weeks or months for a comprehensive reply to the objections you've raised. As for Pedro I wouldn't consider him a representative for Illuminism or the Illuminati in any way, shape, or form. Pedro is to Illuminism what the KKK are to Christianity. I don't think his mind could handle the information and unfortunately he has lost it.
Anyways I look forward to speaking to you in the future.